Home » Copyright Law Updates » New Settlements and Verdicts » Current Summary
Copyright Law Summary
Ferguson Agrees to Entry of Consent Decree in Landscape Painting Case
Ferguson v. Hopp
DOCKET NUMBER: 06CV01619(WDB), 2008 WL 1745576, District Court for the Northern District of California , 01/11/2008
Holding
The parties agreed to the entry of a consent decree in this copyright infringement case involving plaintiff J. Carlos Ferguson’s original landscape painting. Specifically, defendant Rockwell Hopp, an art dealer, agreed to provide a certificate of authenticity for any piece of art sold by him to every purchaser. Further, defendant agreed to provide a copy of the consent decree to each and every artist that he may represent during the next five years. Lastly, Hopp agreed to provide anyone purchasing art from him with a mechanism for them to contact the creator of the art they purchased. In turn, plaintiff agreed not to seek any further relief for the acts, practices, or omissions alleged in the complaint against defendant, except to enforce the provisions of the decree.
Detailed Summary
Plaintiff filed this action for copyright infringement, infringement of the right of attribution, commercial misappropriation of a name, and unfair competition under California and federal law in regard to his original, untitled, 42″ x 42″ oil on canvas landscape painting. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, assumed jurisdiction over the case. Plaintiff alleged that his painting was properly exhibited with attribution to him at the Olson-Larsen Gallery in Des Moines, Iowa in 1999. In addition, the New American Paintings art journal featured this painting in its May, 2000 issue. Plaintiff asserted that on June 2, 2000, defendant Hopp sold an unauthorized copy of the painting for $9,000.
As his defense, defendant asserted good faith in dealing. Specifically, he claimed he was of the honest belief that what he had sold to Kohn and Kleinman was an original painting. Upon being informed of his alleged wrongdoing, he agreed to return the purchase price of the painting to the buyers. As further defense, defendant claims the painting had not been publicly shown or published. Defendant also claimed that plaintiff Fergusson asked for damages that were six times the selling price of the painting.
In a consent decree, the parties stipulated that the consent decree would not constitute evidence or the admission of any party as to any issue of law raised by the complaint, and agreed to waive findings of fact and conclusions of law raised by the complaint.
Defendant agreed to provide a certificate of authenticity to each and every purchaser of any piece of art sold by him. For a period of five years after the effective date of the consent decree, defendant agreed to provide a copy of the decree to each and every artist that he represents. Further, defendant agreed to provide a mechanism for each and every purchaser of any piece of art that he sells to contact the creator of any piece of art that is sold to confirm the provenance of the piece of art.
Defendant agreed to post a notice on the premises of his current gallery, or any other future place of business he maintains for the purpose of selling art to the public, informing prospective customers that they must receive a certificate of authenticity for any piece of art purchased. Defendant must also post such notice on any website under his control used to sell art.
In turn, plaintiff agreed not to seek any further relief for the acts, practices, or omissions alleged in the complaint, except to enforce the provisions of the decree to the extent permitted by law.
Service
Link to this article · 
Send via E-mail · 
Printable Version (opens in new window)
